alt Hacker NewsIn terms of ergonomics, resonance and so on, there's not many terribly optimal solidbody electronic guitar shapes that deviate from the Les Paul/Strat/Tele trinity. Explorers, Flying Vs and the like are basically genre-oddities for aesthetics.
Guitars are not about aesthetics, otherwise Fender wouldn't have marques like Squier or ranges like Highway One to differentiate their low-quality tiers.
Replies
> Guitars are not about aesthetics
My wife used to work at Acoustic Guitar magazine. She said the most common sales line to sell a guitar at Guitar Center was "it looks good on you". The sound of guitars might not be aesthetics, but in regards to sales, it most certainly is. Everyone plays the same guitars because they grew up seeing their idols play those guitars.
If guitars were about ergonomics, technology, and sound they would be copying strandbergs!
These vintage designs are all about nostalgia and looks.
Anyway Bo Diddley demonstrated the most optimal body shape for holding electronics. :)
Guitars are very much about aesthetics, which is why they're so often strategically placed in the background on Zoom calls.
This is really not true with electric, solid-body guitars. The materials play some role, but the down-stream amplification and processing is where the biggest differences occur, combined with the guitar's electronics. Body shape has very little to do with it. Fender basically creates the same-looking guitar at many price points specifically to capitalize on letting everyone buy a "stratocaster". The quality difference is the combined materials, craftsmanship, hardware and electronics.